More than a few people believe that the Los Angeles Kings managed to get this far despite Jonathan Quick, rather than because of his goaltending. After a 5-4 double-overtime win in Game 2, Quick clearly seemed to dismiss his critics, as LA Kings Insider reports.

“When you get to something like this, it’s not about statistics – it’s not about statistics any time of the year to be honest – but I think those are just kind of something that people that don’t really know the game, it gives them something to judge off of,” Quick said. “You’re going to get those high scoring games, you’re going to get low scoring games. It’s a playoff series.”

One cannot help but wonder if Quick felt the same way about statistics during his lights-out run to a 2012 Stanley Cup victory and the Conn Smythe that came with it. There’s a solid chance voters kept an eye on the numbers he put up.

Whether you look at the big picture (.906 save percentage in the postseason) or recent starts (he’s allowed 4+ goals in four of his last five games and in eight playoff games overall in 2014), things have been rocky for the 28-year-old netminder. At least individually.

Again, Quick doesn’t seem all that bothered by such factors, especially since he’s two wins away from winning his second Stanley Cup ring.

To no surprise, his teammates have his back, too.

Reporter commenting on Lundqvist having a 4-2 lead in third… 'They have a world class goalie and so do we.' – @Willie_Mitch33

Stats-leaning onlookers roll their eyes at “making the big save” or “timely saves,” yet that’s likely what Quick’s defenders would point to. A great example is Quick finding a way to stop a Brad Richards one-timer, a moment that’s actually captured in this post’s main image.

Feel free to pick through the goals he allowed and saves he made in the Game 2 highlight reel … even if Quick doesn’t seem to care what his critics think.

The only important statistics are:
1) the final score, and
2) who’s ahead the series

Mark - Jun 8, 2014 at 9:26 PM

While that may be true, the Kings are winning despite Quick’s poor performance. If he’s playing like he did in the regular season, he would have allowed 7 fewer goals. If he’s playing like he has during his career in the playoffs, he’d have allowed 11 fewer goals.

In simpler terms, many of the games that went to overtime would have been decided in 60 minutes had Quick been playing better.

The only logic I’m using is showing that Quick has not been very good, and had he been playing even slightly better the Kings wouldn’t have had to come back to win all of the games that they did…because they wouldn’t have been trailing in those games to begin with.

patthehockeyfan - Jun 9, 2014 at 8:15 AM

I understand and agree with what you wrote, Mark; however, the statistic that matters is that the Kings are up 2 – 0 over the Rangers, Quick’s performance notwithstanding. Really doesn’t matter how they got there; they’re there.

Below, you write: ” … had he been playing even slightly better the Kings wouldn’t have had to come back to win all of the games that they did…”

Bottom line is that they won the games; not how, not whether they could have in 60 minutes. Using the KISS method (Keep It Simple S*****), they won.

Again, Quick’s right. The stats that matter, the important stats are the final score, and who’s ahead in the series.

If, for example, your team gets dominated in terms of puck possession and shots allowed, but you steal a win because your goalie bails you out, I don’t think the coach just kicks back and says “A win’s a win, guys, so keep doing what you’re doing!”

lateralous - Jun 8, 2014 at 8:22 PM

As a devils fan, I have no love for Quick from two years ago but the dude still comes up with the big save at all the right times. Even early in the sharks series there haven’t been many, if any, weak goals despite the quantity going in. Sometimes I think people don’t remember that even Hasek didn’t always play like Hasek at the ’98 Olympics most seasons.

blomfeld - Jun 8, 2014 at 10:36 PM

THERE WILL BE BLOOD …

The bottom line is that we Kings have just defeated the ‘top 3′ powerhouses of the WC in ‘dramatic & nail-biting’ fashion (San Jose, Anaheim, Chicago) and these were the NHL’s ‘highest’ scoring teams which we weren’t even supposed to have had a chance against. So what’s the deal here with you dopes ? … like were we supposed to have shut these people out or something ? You Quick detractors are ‘human’ junk and you make me sick, as your questioning of Quick’s performances thus far equates to nothing more than ‘unabashed’ disrespect for the league’s top offenses ! Going into these playoffs, we ‘true’ King’s fans already knew that in terms of Quick’s numbers, the butcher’s bill would be dear, for such is the ‘superior’ quality of our foes in this 2014 campaign. But as Jonathan says, ‘it’s not about statistics’. And that’s exactly correct, because at the end of the day it’s all about ‘personal’ sacrifice’ to achieve team victory … nothing more and nothing less !

Thought both goalies were very good last game despite the 9 total goals. Yeah, Quick had the good behind the net, but otherwise the Rangers and Kings both just scored some quality goals. Lundqvist had no chance on the winning goal. Quick no chance on the St. Louis goal. It happens. Offensive players have to be given credit sometimes.